NATIONAL CHILDREN'S AND YOUTH LAW CENTRESubmissionhttp://www.ncylc.org.au/publicat/discpapers/Submission%20-%20Corpor..."ConclusionThe Centre urges the state governments to reassess their position on corporal punishment in light of the discriminatory nature of its laws, the inconsistency of its laws with international obligations and the fact that by way of the inclusion of a lawful correction defence, some states governments are, in effect, permitting the intentional infliction of harm (physical and mental) on one of the most vulnerable groups in our society."

CENTRE FOR COMMUNITY CHILD HEALTH - The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne

Click on the link to the centre's "CROC" website in the welcome on the 'About' page for more info and resources relating to Australia's Implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC).

NAPCAN (National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect)

"Violence begets violence and we shall reap a whirlwind. Children can be disciplined without violence that instils fear and misery, If we really want a peaceful and compassionate world, we need to build communities of trust where all children are respected, where home and school are safe places to be and where discipline is taught by example. May God give us grace to love our children as He loves them and may their trust in us lead them to trust in Him.

Are we as Christians ready to take up this challenge? Instead of their current inaction, Australian churches should be advocates of a total ban on the corporal punishment of children."

"Extending rights to children, a group with no voting rights, whose rights are seen as competing with the rights of the adult electorate, has been slow in coming. However, with increasing international pressure and as increasing numbers of countries change to legislation which recognizes the needs and rights of children, those Anglo-American countries which are lagging behind on this issue, will eventually have to decide whether children count as ‰Û÷human‰Ûª for the purposes of rights protection and whether, in the context of corporal punishment, children will achieve security of their person."

CALLS TO BAN THE PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDRENMonash University28 April 2010 http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/1611Dr Bernadette Saunders and Justice Nicholson are both available for comment. To arrange an interview contact Samantha Blair, Media and Communications + 61 3 9903 4841 or 0439 013 951.

BANNING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: SHOULD PSYCHOLOGISTS LEAD THE WAY?John Reddington MAPS

"6. We call upon our governments to adopt legislation to prohibit all forms of violence against children, including corporal punishment, and to ensure the full rights of children, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international and regional agreements. We urge them to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure the effective implementation of these laws and to ensure that religious communities participate formally in these mechanisms. Our religious communities are ready to serve as monitors of implementation, making use of national and international bodies to maintain accountability."

"A ban on smacking in the home could prevent deaths arising from the physical abuse of children, which is the cause of more than a third of child homicides in NSW, a University of New South Wales (UNSW) study has found."

EPOCH Tasmania - Choose To Hug Not Hit

An Oration by the Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC Honorary Professorial Fellow Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne Former Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia, Patron, Children’s Rights International to mark International ‘No Smacking’ Day, Parliament House, Hobart, 30 April 2007 http://www.patmalar.com/hobart2007.pdf

"Organisations like EPOCH and the Australian Children‰Ûªs Foundation and Children‰Ûªs Commissioners like Tasmania’s former Children’s Commissioner, Patmalar Ambikapathy, and law reform bodies like the Tasmania Law Reform Institute can and have played their part in bringing about change. Similarly international bodies continue to place pressure on Australia, and countries like it, to comply with international norms and treaties. Sadly, a country that formerly prided itself upon being a good international citizen no longer is one and pays little heed to human rights.

The remedy lies very much in the hands of our political leaders, who surely can bring more intelligence to bear upon this issue than was demonstrated in their quoted responses that I referred to previously. We are dealing with a serious ethical and public health problem that needs to be taken far more seriously than it has been to date. Our responses to issues of violence and particularly bullying and family violence have tended to be reactive rather than proactive and it is more than time that we acted to eliminate possible causes of the problem rather than merely trying to cope with the results.

"ConclusionTo conclude then the essential elements of having achieved change in New Zealand were: strong advocacy on the part of various NGOs and other supportive groups; the interest and support of a number of politicians across political parties: a courageous politician willing to lead the political charge: support from the party in power; and an understanding that law change would have to precede public opinion rather than be guided by public opinion. Law change was aimed in part at influencing public opinion.

Some cautions are: do not underestimate the power and determination of organised opposition; try to ensure that law change, when it is achieved, is accompanied by public education about law change and a PR campaign to engage support for it.

And finally on a positive note the words of a child: Kids should be thought of first in the law (13 year old girl)."

FIRST GLOBAL MEETING OF INDEPENDENT HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS FOR CHILDREN (NY, 2002)"Children should never be an appendix. They should be the starting point. Without Children's rights there are no Human Rights"Trond WaageOmbudsperson for Children, Norway

"When the world loves, cherishes and respects its children as mush as it hates, disregards and disrespects enemies, true peace will prevail."The Honourable Roger McClayCommissioner for Children, New Zealand

"We should not talk of simply making promises to children. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the intrinsic and inalienable human rights of the child and actions in their best interest are not a question of favor or generosity."Patmalar Ambikapathy,Commissioner for Children, Tasmania, Australia

"This report makes three alternative recommendations. Each of these recommendations is made by a majority of the Institute‰Ûªs Board, however they were not unanimous. In summary, they are:

Recommendation 1:(Philip Jackson and Paul Turner dissented from this recommendation)

Recommendation 1 is that the defence of reasonable correction be abolished. The following steps should be taken as part of this process:

(a) Remove the defence of reasonable correction from the Criminal Code;

(b) Include a clear statement in the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act that physical punishment and any form of cruel, degrading or terrifying punishment is prohibited;

(c) Introduce a statute relating to civil proceedings stating that the defence of reasonable chastisement has been abolished.

(d) Impose a time delay of 12 months on the coming into force of all amending legislation;

(e) Undertake a widespread education campaign to inform the community of the changes to the laws and provide information and resources to assist them in the use of alternative discipline techniques; and

(f) Conduct a detailed analysis of current public opinion of this topic, to be repeated after a number of years to ascertain changes in the community's views. Such research would be particularly beneficial to other states and countries considering changing their laws." (p47)

"Possibly the strongest argument against smacking is that violence breeds violence. When parents use physical force to enforce their will, they teach their children that this is an appropriate way to solve problems. Witnessing violence is also traumatic for children." Kate Gaffney, lecturer in criminology, Monash

"...It is also not unusual to detect links between different types of violence. Research has shown that exposure to violence in the home is associated with being a victim or perpetrator of violence in adolescence and adulthood (49). The experience of being rejected, neglected or suffering indifference at the hands of parents leaves children at greater risk for aggressive and antisocial behaviour, including abusive behaviour as adults (50-52)." (p15)

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement."

"We're putting in place a long term strategy here to try and reduce inter-generational abuse".

Refer to the findings of Elizabeth Gershoff's meta-analysis:

"...American psychologist and social researcher Elizabeth Gershoff [3] recently examined 88 pieces of research designed to measure the effects of corporal punishment on children. Overwhelming, according to Gershoff's extensive analysis, researchers have found that the most spanking or smacking can hope to accomplish is immediate, short-term compliance. You can hit a kid, in other words, and you're likely to force them to do what you want. But this only works for the short term, and the behaviour enforced soon wears off. This means that spanking does not cause children to internalise any moral message. Punishment does not deliver a lesson on ethics, even if it ensures the child's compliance while the discipliner is around. To put it in another way: a smack can induce children to learn ethical rules with their heads, but not with their hearts. So far, no one has managed to demonstrate that spanking works. As psychologist George W Holden said after a review of Gershoff's analysis, corporal punishment does not accomplish the goal for which it is used. [4]

Perhaps it would be OK for us to keep spanking our children if the results were no worse than irregular, superficial and temporary compliance. However, there is much worse to be said about corporal punishment. There are scores of studies demonstrating that it is actually harmful, in a number of ways. And the indications regarding harmful effects are 'remarkably consistent' throughout all studies. [5] Moreover, unlike the rare and dubious 'positive' effects of corporal punishment, the harmful effects last well into the long term." (p182, Parenting for a Peaceful World, Robin Grille)

"EPOCH-USA seeks to end corporal punishment of children in all settings including homes through education and legal reform. The following links provide useful information about effects of corporal punishment of children and alternatives."

"Judy has a PhD in developmental psychology and considerable research experience in relation to children's involvement in legal proceedings and other processes in which decisions are made about children's care and protection, and guardianship. The special focus of this research has been on children's perceptions of the process and the implications for social policy. She has worked as a consultant to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the NSW Department of Community Services, the NSW Community Services Commission and the NSW Child Protection Council. She has chaired or served as a member of a number of government committees concerning child protection, child death reviews and the review of child protection legislation and policy in NSW. She is currently a member of the Specialist Accreditation Committee for Children's Lawyers in NSW."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Refer to Judy Cashmore's long list of publications relevant to this campaign.

"Human Factors Underpinning Opposition to Change" for which New Zealanders opposed the bill, including concerns about a nanny state (elaborated in Unreasonable Force, Wood et al, p 142-6), also relevant to our society:

...Addressing a specific fear that the public had about a possible consequence of repeal did increase public support when the Bill was finally passed.

Conclusion

Although the strength of public opposition to law reform may have been exaggerated by opinion polls that focused solely on parental rights, resistance to change was undoubtedly strong. Such resistance is not difficult to understand given the deeply held feelings and beliefs that we have discussed. As was the case in earlier progressive social developments that involved huge social change (such as the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage), law reform was aimed in part at facilitating that change. In relation to physical punishment of children, we believe that changing public attitudes and parental behaviour without law reform would have been a very slow process. In New Zealand, where we now have the benefit of a legal ban, that process of social change is gathering momentum.

It may be that in passing the new law in 2007, New Zealand is experiencing a tipping point phenomenon in which social change appears to take place suddenly, although preparedness for that change has in fact been slowly

building over time, albeit reluctantly for some.336 It may be that growing preparedness for change amongst the public was disguised by the assiduous framing of the issue by those opposed to change.

At the very least, there is reason to believe that many New Zealanders have reached a point of acquiescence with regard to the new law. Since its passage, there has been only limited public and media interest in it. As we will see in the next chapter, this contrasts strongly with the intense media interest that accompanied the prolonged passage of the Bill through Parliament."

UNREASONABLE FORCE: New Zealand's journey towards banning the physical punishment of children

Editorials play a significant role in shaping public opinion and influencing the positions that politicians adopt. Newspaper editorials are usually considered to provide thoughtful, well-reasoned opinions that carry greater weight than the musings of media commentators.

The three leading New Zealand daily newspapers enjoy sizeable circulations: the New Zealand Herald prints about 200,000 copies, the Dominion Post nearly 100,000, and the Press around 90,000.369 The editor of the Press took an early stance in favour of simple repeal and eloquently advocated for repeal throughout the period in which the Bill was before the House. Early on, the editor of the Dominion Post wrote that ‘good parents’ don’t hit their children but later he expressed unhappiness with the final form of the Bill. It was his contention that if the real intention of the Bill was to ban all smacking then Parliament should be upfront about it.

The New Zealand Herald editorials reveal a fascinating opinion trail. The editorials may not have been written by the same editor but the journey nevertheless reflects an illuminating process of developing awareness.

24 September 2003: [Repeal] would amount to a ban on smacking. Is it necessary to go that far? Probably not.373

13 June 2005: What is needed is not the repeal of section 59 but a substantial rewriting of the Crimes Act.374

23 November 2006: There is, however, the welcome possibility that the Bill will send a latent message to some parents who cross the line … 375

2 April 2007: Yet it could send a message to parents who do not understand the meaning of reasonable force, and as such could be a catalyst for a change in attitude. 376

3 May 2007: Now it is important that the concluding agreement leaves no doubt that the law will no longer allow children to be beaten by anyone.377

The opinions of the commentators

Much of the highly charged debate on the repeal of section 59 was conducted in opinion pieces put forward by regular newspapers commentators.378 Some provided thoughtful insight; others were dogmatic in their stance. During the passage of the Bill through the House, numerous opinion pieces were written, some of which generated more heat than light. Some commentators took a consistent stance against repeal and nothing would convince them otherwise. One commentator who was unconvinced to start with but eventually came to support repeal was Tapu Misa of the New Zealand Herald. In 2005 she wrote:

The first time I tackled the subject of smacking in this column, it started out as a defence of a parent‰Ûªs inalienable right to smack…

But in the midst of what had seemed to me unassailable arguments… I had a change of heart.

It became clear to me that I was defending the indefensible.

Could there really be anything right about accepting a lesser standard of protection in law for children than we would for adults and animals?379"

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement."

“In October 2006, the Independent Expert for the Secretary-General Study on Violence against Children, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro of Brazil , presented his final report to the UN General Assembly. The Study analyses violence against children in five settings: the home and family; schools and educational settings; care and justice institutions; the work-place; and the community. The Study contains 12 over-arching recommendations and a number of setting specific recommendations that represent a comprehensive framework for follow-up action.

The Study process also resulted in a more detailed World Report on Violence against Children and in child friendly publications. The Study material not available in this page can be found at: www.violencestudy.org

On 19 October 2007, the Independent Expert presented his progress report on the implementation of the Study recommendations to the General-Assembly. Click here to read his statement.

GA resolution A/RES/62/141 established the post of Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children. The resolution encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) to cooperate with and support the Special Representative.”

‘The Study provides a strong platform for advocacy and action. “No matter whether it occurs in the family, school, community, institution or workplace, health workers are the front line for responding to violence against children,” said Dr Anders Nordström, WHO Acting Director-General, on the occasion of the launch in October 2006. “We must make our contribution to ensuring that such violence is prevented from occurring in the first place, and that where it does occur children receive the best possible services to reduce its harmful effects. States should pursue evidence-based policies and programmes which address factors that give rise to such violence, and ensure that resources are allocated to address its underlying causes and monitor the response to these efforts.”’

Ending legalised violence against children – Global Report

A contribution to the UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children

"...American psychologist and social researcher Elizabeth Gershoff [3] recently examined 88 pieces of research designed to measure the effects of corporal punishment on children. Overwhelming, according to Gershoff's extensive analysis, researchers have found that the most spanking or smacking can hope to accomplish is immediate, short-term compliance. You can hit a kid, in other words, and you're likely to force them to do what you want. But this only works for the short term, and the behaviour enforced soon wears off. This means that spanking does not cause children to internalise any moral message. Punishment does not deliver a lesson on ethics, even if it ensures the child's compliance while the discipliner is around. To put it in another way: a smack can induce children to learn ethical rules with their heads, but not with their hearts. So far, no one has managed to demonstrate that spanking works. As psychologist George W Holden said after a review of Gershoff's analysis, corporal punishment does not accomplish the goal for which it is used. [4]

Perhaps it would be OK for us to keep spanking our children if the results were no worse than irregular, superficial and temporary compliance. However, there is much worse to be said about corporal punishment. There are scores of studies demonstrating that it is actually harmful, in a number of ways. And the indications regarding harmful effects are 'remarkably consistent' throughout all studies. [5] Moreover, unlike the rare and dubious 'positive' effects of corporal punishment, the harmful effects last well into the long term." (p182, Parenting for a Peaceful World, 2005, Robin Grille)

"...It is also not unusual to detect links between different types of violence. Research has shown that exposure to violence in the home is associated with being a victim or perpetrator of violence in adolescence and adulthood (49). The experience of being rejected, neglected or suffering indifference at the hands of parents leaves children at greater risk for aggressive and antisocial behaviour, including abusive behaviour as adults (50-52)." (p15)

NATIONAL CHILDREN'S AND YOUTH LAW CENTRESubmissionhttp://www.ncylc.org.au/publicat/discpapers/Submission%20-%20Corpor..."ConclusionThe Centre urges the state governments to reassess their position on corporal punishment in light of the discriminatory nature of its laws, the inconsistency of its laws with international obligations and the fact that by way of the inclusion of a lawful correction defence, some states governments are, in effect, permitting the intentional infliction of harm (physical and mental) on one of the most vulnerable groups in our society."

CENTRE FOR COMMUNITY CHILD HEALTH - The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne

Click on the link to the centre's "CROC" website in the welcome on the 'About' page for more info and resources relating to Australia's Implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC).

CALLS TO BAN THE PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDRENMonash University28 April 2010 http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/1611Dr Bernadette Saunders and Justice Nicholson are both available for comment. To arrange an interview contact Samantha Blair, Media and Communications + 61 3 9903 4841 or 0439 013 951.

"A ban on smacking in the home could prevent deaths arising from the physical abuse of children, which is the cause of more than a third of child homicides in NSW, a University of New South Wales (UNSW) study has found."

"Violence begets violence and we shall reap a whirlwind. Children can be disciplined without violence that instils fear and misery, If we really want a peaceful and compassionate world, we need to build communities of trust where all children are respected, where home and school are safe places to be and where discipline is taught by example. May God give us grace to love our children as He loves them and may their trust in us lead them to trust in Him.

Are we as Christians ready to take up this challenge? Instead of their current inaction, Australian churches should be advocates of a total ban on the corporal punishment of children."

"Extending rights to children, a group with no voting rights, whose rights are seen as competing with the rights of the adult electorate, has been slow in coming. However, with increasing international pressure and as increasing numbers of countries change to legislation which recognizes the needs and rights of children, those Anglo-American countries which are lagging behind on this issue, will eventually have to decide whether children count as ‘human’ for the purposes of rights protection and whether, in the context of corporal punishment, children will achieve security of their person."

BANNING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: SHOULD PSYCHOLOGISTS LEAD THE WAY?John Reddington MAPS

“The Australian Section of Defence for Children International is the local link in a global chain of children’s rights agencies recognised by the United Nations.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child focuses on people under 18 years of age. It sets out the principles which guide DCI’s actions and campaigns: children’s rights to protection, provision, promotion and participation.

DCI-Australia is a nation-wide organisation independent of government. We are an incorporated association that relies on subscriptions and donations. Apart from some specifically funded projects in the past, DCI-Australia’s activities are undertaken by volunteers from within its ranks. We have no core funding and no paid staff.”

“Emeritus Professor Kim Oates AM, University of Sydney gave the Inaugural Oration for the END PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT ALLIANCE at VICTORIA UNIVERSITY MELBOURNE Friday 19th November 2010.

His presentation “Child abuse: The Past, the Pitfalls and the Possibilities” provided an excellent overview of the awareness and understanding of child abuse and the future possibilities.

Kim Oates AM MD DSc MHP FRACP FRCP FRACMA FAFPHM DCH has had extensive experience as a clinician working with abused children and their families and also as a researcher. He is currently on the Executive Council of the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect and is Senior Associate Editor of the international journal, “Child Abuse and Neglect”. He has received a range of national and international awards for his advocacy on behalf of children.”

EPOCH Tasmania - Choose To Hug Not Hit

An Oration by the Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC Honorary Professorial Fellow Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne Former Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia, Patron, Children’s Rights International to mark International ‘No Smacking’ Day, Parliament House, Hobart, 30 April 2007 http://www.patmalar.com/hobart2007.pdf

"Organisations like EPOCH and the Australian Children’s Foundation and Children’s Commissioners like Tasmania’s former Children’s Commissioner, Patmalar Ambikapathy, and law reform bodies like the Tasmania Law Reform Institute can and have played their part in bringing about change. Similarly international bodies continue to place pressure on Australia, and countries like it, to comply with international norms and treaties. Sadly, a country that formerly prided itself upon being a good international citizen no longer is one and pays little heed to human rights.

The remedy lies very much in the hands of our political leaders, who surely can bring more intelligence to bear upon this issue than was demonstrated in their quoted responses that I referred to previously. We are dealing with a serious ethical and public health problem that needs to be taken far more seriously than it has been to date. Our responses to issues of violence and particularly bullying and family violence have tended to be reactive rather than proactive and it is more than time that we acted to eliminate possible causes of the problem rather than merely trying to cope with the results.

..."

FIRST GLOBAL MEETING OF INDEPENDENT HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS FOR CHILDREN (NY, 2002)

"Children should never be an appendix. They should be the starting point. Without Children's rights there are no Human Rights"Trond WaageOmbudsperson for Children, Norway

"When the world loves, cherishes and respects its children as mush as it hates, disregards and disrespects enemies, true peace will prevail."The Honourable Roger McClayCommissioner for Children, New Zealand

"We should not talk of simply making promises to children. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the intrinsic and inalienable human rights of the child and actions in their best interest are not a question of favor or generosity."Patmalar Ambikapathy,Commissioner for Children, Tasmania, Australia

"6. We call upon our governments to adopt legislation to prohibit all forms of violence against children, including corporal punishment, and to ensure the full rights of children, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international and regional agreements. We urge them to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure the effective implementation of these laws and to ensure that religious communities participate formally in these mechanisms. Our religious communities are ready to serve as monitors of implementation, making use of national and international bodies to maintain accountability."

"Judy has a PhD in developmental psychology and considerable research experience in relation to children's involvement in legal proceedings and other processes in which decisions are made about children's care and protection, and guardianship. The special focus of this research has been on children's perceptions of the process and the implications for social policy. She has worked as a consultant to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the NSW Department of Community Services, the NSW Community Services Commission and the NSW Child Protection Council. She has chaired or served as a member of a number of government committees concerning child protection, child death reviews and the review of child protection legislation and policy in NSW. She is currently a member of the Specialist Accreditation Committee for Children's Lawyers in NSW."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Refer to Judy Cashmore's long list of publications relevant to this campaign.

"This report makes three alternative recommendations. Each of these recommendations is made by a majority of the Institute’s Board, however they were not unanimous. In summary, they are:

Recommendation 1:(Philip Jackson and Paul Turner dissented from this recommendation)

Recommendation 1 is that the defence of reasonable correction be abolished. The following steps should be taken as part of this process:

(a) Remove the defence of reasonable correction from the Criminal Code;

(b) Include a clear statement in the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act that physical punishment and any form of cruel, degrading or terrifying punishment is prohibited;

(c) Introduce a statute relating to civil proceedings stating that the defence of reasonable chastisement has been abolished.

(d) Impose a time delay of 12 months on the coming into force of all amending legislation;

(e) Undertake a widespread education campaign to inform the community of the changes to the laws and provide information and resources to assist them in the use of alternative discipline techniques; and

(f) Conduct a detailed analysis of current public opinion of this topic, to be repeated after a number of years to ascertain changes in the community's views. Such research would be particularly beneficial to other states and countries considering changing their laws." (p47)

"ConclusionTo conclude then the essential elements of having achieved change in New Zealand were: strong advocacy on the part of various NGOs and other supportive groups; the interest and support of a number of politicians across political parties: a courageous politician willing to lead the political charge: support from the party in power; and an understanding that law change would have to precede public opinion rather than be guided by public opinion. Law change was aimed in part at influencing public opinion.

Some cautions are: do not underestimate the power and determination of organised opposition; try to ensure that law change, when it is achieved, is accompanied by public education about law change and a PR campaign to engage support for it.

And finally on a positive note the words of a child: Kids should be thought of first in the law (13 year old girl)."

...Addressing a specific fear that the public had about a possible consequence of repeal did increase public support when the Bill was finally passed.

Conclusion

Although the strength of public opposition to law reform may have been exaggerated by opinion polls that focused solely on parental rights, resistance to change was undoubtedly strong. Such resistance is not difficult to understand given the deeply held feelings and beliefs that we have discussed. As was the case in earlier progressive social developments that involved huge social change (such as the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage), law reform was aimed in part at facilitating that change. In relation to physical punishment of children, we believe that changing public attitudes and parental behaviour without law reform would have been a very slow process. In New Zealand, where we now have the benefit of a legal ban, that process of social change is gathering momentum.

It may be that in passing the new law in 2007, New Zealand is experiencing a tipping point phenomenon in which social change appears to take place suddenly, although preparedness for that change has in fact been slowly building over time, albeit reluctantly for some.336 It may be that growing preparedness for change amongst the public was disguised by the assiduous framing of the issue by those opposed to change.

At the very least, there is reason to believe that many New Zealanders have reached a point of acquiescence with regard to the new law. Since its passage, there has been only limited public and media interest in it. As we will see in the next chapter, this contrasts strongly with the intense media

interest that accompanied the prolonged passage of the Bill through Parliament."

Editorials play a significant role in shaping public opinion and influencing the positions that politicians adopt. Newspaper editorials are usually considered to provide thoughtful, well-reasoned opinions that carry greater weight than the musings of media commentators.

The three leading New Zealand daily newspapers enjoy sizeable circulations: the New Zealand Herald prints about 200,000 copies, the Dominion Post nearly 100,000, and the Press around 90,000.369 The editor of the Press took an early stance in favour of simple repeal and eloquently advocated for repeal throughout the period in which the Bill was before the House. Early on, the editor of the Dominion Post wrote that ‘good parents’ don’t hit their children but later he expressed unhappiness with the final form of the Bill. It was his contention that if the real intention of the Bill was to ban all smacking then Parliament should be upfront about it.

The New Zealand Herald editorials reveal a fascinating opinion trail. The editorials may not have been written by the same editor but the journey nevertheless reflects an illuminating process of developing awareness.

24 September 2003: [Repeal] would amount to a ban on smacking. Is it necessary to go that far? Probably not.373

13 June 2005: What is needed is not the repeal of section 59 but a substantial rewriting of the Crimes Act.374

23 November 2006: There is, however, the welcome possibility that the Bill will send a latent message to some parents who cross the line … 375

2 April 2007: Yet it could send a message to parents who do not understand the meaning of reasonable force, and as such could be a catalyst for a change in attitude. 376

3 May 2007: Now it is important that the concluding agreement leaves no doubt that the law will no longer allow children to be beaten by anyone.377

The opinions of the commentators

Much of the highly charged debate on the repeal of section 59 was conducted in opinion pieces put forward by regular newspapers commentators.378 Some provided thoughtful insight; others were dogmatic in their stance. During the passage of the Bill through the House, numerous opinion pieces were written, some of which generated more heat than light. Some commentators took a consistent stance against repeal and nothing would convince them otherwise. One commentator who was unconvinced to start with but eventually came to support repeal was Tapu Misa of the New Zealand Herald. In 2005 she wrote:

The first time I tackled the subject of smacking in this column, it started out as a defence of a parent’s inalienable right to smack…

But in the midst of what had seemed to me unassailable arguments… I had a change of heart.

It became clear to me that I was defending the indefensible.

Could there really be anything right about accepting a lesser standard of protection in law for children than we would for adults and animals?379"

"Possibly the strongest argument against smacking is that violence breeds violence. When parents use physical force to enforce their will, they teach their children that this is an appropriate way to solve problems. Witnessing violence is also traumatic for children."

"EPOCH-USA seeks to end corporal punishment of children in all settings including homes through education and legal reform. The following links provide useful information about effects of corporal punishment of children and alternatives."

Delegates to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) narrowly passed a resolution calling for "an end to the practice of corporal punishment in homes, schools and child care facilities."

"Next week: Tough LoveIs it ever ok to smack? All parents set their own boundaries when it comes to disciplining kids. How much of that decision is determined by a parent’s generation or culture? One researcher tells Insight that migrants from collectivist cultures often find Australian parenting styles too laidback and are surprised to learn that smacking can be frowned upon. Do you agree? What do you think is the best way to keep kids in line? Start the conversation here. "